Lancer wrote:
If the choice is between Torts and Tippett.... I'd have to hold my nose and point to Torts. At least the guy coached some offensive hockey in Tampa once upon a time. Tippett will have us pining for the entertainment of Vigneault's first couple of years behind the bench in Vancouver.

Having said that, if the choice is between 'A' or 'B', can I choose 'C'

...please???

A coaching change will make a significant difference, but agree that the room has to get some old people out and some new people in if the team is going to move forward. There has to be more to this summer than a new coach, some extra picks for Luongo and the Young Stars competition.

Unfortunately, entertaining hockey is only successful in the regular season, not the playoffs.

Dave Tippett served as an assistant coach on Andy Murray's staff from 1999-2002 before being named the 19th coach in Stars franchise history on May 21, 2002. Tippet was relieved of his duties as head coach of the Stars on June 10, 2009.

In all three seasons Tippett was in Los Angeles the Kings qualified for the playoffs. Under Tippett's direction, the Kings’ power play led the entire NHL with a 20.7% success rate. In 2000-01, the power play ranked seventh and in 1999-2000 it finished 10th. The year before Tippett came aboard the Kings, in 1998-99, the Kings power play unit ranked 24th in the league. During the 2000-01 campaign Los Angeles tallied 245 goals which were the most the Kings had recorded since the 1993-94 season.

donlever wrote:Dave Tippett served as an assistant coach on Andy Murray's staff from 1999-2002 before being named the 19th coach in Stars franchise history on May 21, 2002. Tippet was relieved of his duties as head coach of the Stars on June 10, 2009.

In all three seasons Tippett was in Los Angeles the Kings qualified for the playoffs. Under Tippett's direction, the Kings’ power play led the entire NHL with a 20.7% success rate. In 2000-01, the power play ranked seventh and in 1999-2000 it finished 10th. The year before Tippett came aboard the Kings, in 1998-99, the Kings power play unit ranked 24th in the league. During the 2000-01 campaign Los Angeles tallied 245 goals which were the most the Kings had recorded since the 1993-94 season.

I hear what you're saying, Don, but I'm still not buying it.

Those gaudy offensive totals are more than 10 years old and the league has changed since then. Hell, the Canucks' best powerplay totals are not even three years-old but to look at the powerplay this season was painful - even though the tactics didn't change much. If that's what happens with three-year-old powerplay thinking, I cringe to think what Tippett's 10-year-old ideas would create out there. Phoenix's powerplay numbers don't point to any genius on his part, so can anyone say his offensive thinking has evolved since then?

What he has shown as a head coach is a consistent evolution of his defensive approach to the game - to the detriment of any semblance of offense. You can't say he didn't have the horses because he didn't even try, as anybody who watched any Coyote game would agree.

Instead of using mouldy, rusted examples to speculate what kind of coach Tippett could be in Vancouver, let's go with a fresher example from Phoenix of what kind of coach he is: an all-defense coach who relies on a suffocating style and an above-average goalie to get teams into the playoffs but rarely any further, and who destroys more prospects than he develops.

BTW Jovo, Vigneault played that 'playoff' defensive trap style his first couple of years. How well did that work out?

...well I am certainly not going to go back and forth on this with you or anyone else but rather was just pointing out that Tippet has shown an affinity for the offensive game and suggestions otherwise are a misnomer.

Ray Ferraro claims that Tippet is a vibrant hockey mind who is as detailed as anyone in the league in preparation, playing styles and working with what he is given as well as noting that he would be perfectly capable of coaching an offensively minded scheme.

A good coach implements a style to maximize the effectiveness of the on-ice assets he has available to him. How else would Tippett have gotten the Coyotes through a couple rounds in the playoffs? If the coach is of any quality at all, he'll have more than one style to draw from.

As Jeff Angus noted (May28), Alain Vigneault made a conscious choice years ago to keep himself removed from the players. It was a style that worked for a long time.

a very no-nonsense kind of guy that isn't interested in making headlines.

The team has switched gears significantly from Gretzky to Tippett, which is most apparent in the Coyotes' draft selections over the past few years. Under Gretzky, offensively gifted players like Mikkel Boedker, Kyle Turris, and Viktor Tikhonov made the NHL roster immediately after being drafted, and in retrospect that stunted their development. With Tippett, the Coyotes have taken a much more conservative approach

In 2009-10, Phoenix were a 52% corsi team (and a 51 % fenclose). The year before, under Gretzky, they were awful, generating just 45.6% of the corsi events in a game (while posting a 44% fenclose). Since then, the Desert Dogs have been rather average, posting a 50.1% corsi and a decidedly middle-of-the-pack 49.7 % fenclose.

donlever wrote:Ray Ferraro claims that Tippet is a vibrant hockey mind who is as detailed as anyone in the league in preparation, playing styles and working with what he is given as well as noting that he would be perfectly capable of coaching an offensively minded scheme.

Sounds like buddy-pumping from an ex-NHLer. I don't know how much credence I'd give it, but I guess this Tippett ping-pong match has gotta end sometime.

Unlike some people I've seen around here regarding certain other Canucks brass, I wouldn't pray and sacrifice small animals to see the Canucks bomb so he can be fired if Tippett becomes the coach. If he gets hired I'd love nothing better than to be proven wrong with them playing a watchable form of hockey - and winning a Cup doing it.

I just don't see it happening, and hope someone else gets hired instead.

Last edited by Lancer on Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'm a fan of Tippett and think he's one of the best coaches in the league. He's probably not a big change from AV, but I consider him a legitimate upgrade over AV.

Tippett does have his flaws. Like AV, he has a solid history of developing defensemen but a poor history of developing offensive forwards. But let's face it, Gillis has talked about the need to get young players into the NHL more quickly, but at the same time, Gillis doesn't believe in rushing prospects and developing them in the NHL. Tippett has no patience in one dimensional offensive players. Neither is Gillis a fan of one dimensional scorers. So to say that Tippett is not a good fit for the team that Mike Gillis built would be wrong.

If the choice is between Tippett and Torts, I hope Gillis goes with Tippett.

I've said before that I wouldn't be a fan of Tippett as our head coach, but that is likely based on my limited knowledge of his coaching ability.

I see him as the trapping Coyotes coach, though there are differing opinions about his ability.

If he is, as some say, a great hockey mind with the ability to work with the players he has and determine the system and strategies to best utilize their strengths then he is exactly what the Canucks need.

I don't think they need a drill sergeant or dictator like Torts, as much as I'd love to see him blast the local media!

donlever wrote:...well I am certainly not going to go back and forth on this with you or anyone else but rather was just pointing out that Tippet has shown an affinity for the offensive game and suggestions otherwise are a misnomer.

Ray Ferraro claims that Tippet is a vibrant hockey mind who is as detailed as anyone in the league in preparation, playing styles and working with what he is given as well as noting that he would be perfectly capable of coaching an offensively minded scheme.

Yup and I'm sure the Canucks management agrees, he's probably the best coach we can get in the market if he were to become available.

It's kinda like hoping we get that rising star snot Justin Schultz, but instead getting Garrison who eventually wound up being a rock solid all round, in his prime dman.

It'll be the same as hoping for Eakins but getting in his prime coach Tippett.